It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Praise Darwin, Evolve Beyond Belief' billboards go up

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thanks.
I'll read over it when I get a chance.
My children are about to come home from school.




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Just for clarity sake and associated interests:


Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people, using 'agnostic' in the sense of 'noncommittal'. However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion. Some authors assert that it is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic and some nontheists self-identify as agnostic atheists.

source: en.wikipedia.org...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latest research suggests that Lamarck may have been more on target then originally given credit; I posted the thread A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution? last week in the news.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and for a little comic relief and for some a over due reality check
;
go to the Open University's Devolve Me to upload a picture, and see yourself turned into an much earlier version of human! From Homo sapiens to Homo heidelbergensis to Homo erectus to Homo habilis to Australopithecus afarensis. Though based on some of these posts i figure this metamorphosis has already taken place.


[edit on 12-2-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


I'm not assuming anything. And I didn't say it came from God.
I don't believe it did. I believe there may have been either outside influence to the Bible or a previous civilization that understood the way of the universe.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

If the Bible (and other religious books) are merely an allegoric story telling of the Natural world, then why is religion needed?


I dont know if I would say organized religion is "needed." I think it is clear that when people interpret other peoples work, messes are easily made. Most religious texts contain some hint that the person is also to learn to listen to some element outside of dogma.

Someone who loves science may call it intuition, or subconscious information processing, some traditions call it seeing with the third eye, some call it "the holy spirit."

The reason spirituality, including religion, exists is because some look at nature and have a sense of something acting consciously through it. They dont see it as blind. Call it God, call it whatever you like. Most people in the world, the vast majority, sense "divine purpose" in nature. They sense a "selector" in natural selection. This may or may not be objectively true, it cannot be proven one way or the other, but it is part of the human condition that most of us sense this. Religion is an expression of this sense. When it degrades into dogma, it becomes a negative expression. But this spiritual sense is not necessarily negative, nor does it contradict with science. Many scientists have had some sense of this. Einstein, is an oft quoted example. How one chooses to elaborate on this sense of purpose is cultural.

But having this sense cannot be "wrong" after all, it is shared by the vast majority of all people. Therefore at the very least it did not provide a negative impact on human evolution, and may in fact have contributed positively in it. Even someone who lacks this sense, has to acknowledge that it has never been selected against.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Which could also be allegory or parable. If one reads allegory and parable as literal truth, it can lead one to some interesting beliefs. Perhaps the authors of those stories were trying to convey something that didnt lend itself easily to direct explanation.

One of the problems with dogmatic Christians is that they take parable as literal truth. One of the problems with dogmatic science lovers is that they take the same parables as literal truth and mock it.

What is similar? They are both taking parable or allegory as literal truth. What is different, one accepts it as truth and the other denies it. There is a third way. Accept parable as not being literal truth.


Well, I think it's a tad unfair to place the blame with 'dogmatic science lovers'. It's not as if there aren't people who still claim these tracts are absolute truth.

I can accept it's some sort of allegorical/poetic explanation of creation. Now't wrong with that. Most ethnic groups had one of some form.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
It takes faith to know something that you cannot know.

If by faith you mean groundless opinion based on speculation,conjecture,heresay,rumour and guesswork then I agree but you don't actualy 'know' anything -you just think you do (big difference).

Claiming to 'know the unknowable' is a very predictable trait promoted by thousands of religious cults/sects down the years -the only thing they all have in common is that all these extraordinarily supernatural claims have absolutely no tangible,cogent evidence whatsoever.
The Greek,Norse,Korean,Roman,Olmec.. mythologies have just as much crediblity and plausibility as the abrahamic one

If a person wants to beleive in talking snakes,people walking on water,food falling from the sky,people living inside whales,snakes turning into sticks,flying horses,moons splitting in half,wizards,witches,demons,giants and all other manner of fantastical occurrences then good for them.
Just don't act surprised when a great many other people think it is just superstitious mythology.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I dont think it is unfair. I place the blame for dogmatism on the dogmatic. Of both camps. I am not singling out dogmatic people on the science side. I thought I was clear that I considered the dogmatically religious also a problem. If I wasnt, let me be clear now. Dogmatism is problematic, regardless how the dogmatic person identifies themself.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 



And yet, as a man of science it is difficult for me to ignore the notion of God...Such a perfectly created universe. So beautiful. In that lies the existence of God. And science the method we use to translate the word of god that come to us in everything we observe. Not from some church or allegorical book.

It is faith. It is belief. But it is not without it's merits. I say we prove the existence of god every day we wake up to learn something more of ourselves and the universe.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Yes but which god ? The history of man is positively littered with gods (and godessess) to choose from.

Who knows,the god that made the universe (5000 billion galaxies each containing 10-100 billion stars) may be far more bizarre and incomprehensible than anyone knows ....or of course He/She/They/It may not exist at all.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


I don't think of God as a personified figure, more of a moving force. I don't relegate God to my opinion of what a god should be. Only that the presence is somehow there.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
And yet, as a man of science it is difficult for me to ignore the notion of God...Such a perfectly created universe. So beautiful. In that lies the existence of God. And science the method we use to translate the word of god that come to us in everything we observe.



I don't think of God as a personified figure, more of a moving force. I don't relegate God to my opinion of what a god should be. Only that the presence is somehow there.


That's just your interpretation of God. But again, it's still an interpretation.

You dismiss the talking snakes, just as most atheist will probably dismiss your interpretation of the natural world as evidence of God's existence.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


And that is fine for them to do so. I have my own beliefs just as everyone else. I do not believe in the supernatural. We are all part of this universe as a universal conscienceness. Everything in connected and that connection, to some, is the definition of god.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge


That's just your interpretation of God. But again, it's still an interpretation.

You dismiss the talking snakes, just as most atheist will probably dismiss your interpretation of the natural world as evidence of God's existence.


You are correct, most atheists will. But atheism isnt synonymous with science or scientists, is it?

Atheism is every bit as much an opinion as religions is. No scientific evidence exists either way regarding the existence of God or a Divine force.

Like your Feynman quote, you seem to be mistaking one specific interpretation of God as the only possible one. Which oddly enough, makes those who argue that way Christians in a sense. As the only God they recognize IS the Christian God as interpreted in modern times.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I dont think it is unfair. I place the blame for dogmatism on the dogmatic. Of both camps. I am not singling out dogmatic people on the science side. I thought I was clear that I considered the dogmatically religious also a problem. If I wasnt, let me be clear now. Dogmatism is problematic, regardless how the dogmatic person identifies themself.


But if christians weren't pushing literal biblical creationism into classrooms and all but accepted that genesis was allegory, then there would be no use 'dogmatic science lovers' using genesis as a stick to bash creationists with.

If someone says to me that evolution is trash, creationism should be taught because genesis is literal truth, then I will bash creationists with the erroneous claims of genesis with a side-dish of science.

Dogmatic science loving doesn't even come into it. And I don't see why such a person would view it as supposed literal truth unless other people were trying to justify such a claim.

If someone says that genesis is allegory, but intelligent design is the truth because the bac flag is irreducibly complex, and therefore should be taught in the science classroom, I'll bash them with science instead. No point harping on about talking snakes and genesis, completely irrelevant.

Still, dogmatic science loving doesn't come into it. Earlier:


What is similar? They are both taking parable or allegory as literal truth. What is different, one accepts it as truth and the other denies it. There is a third way. Accept parable as not being literal truth.


I think the 'dogmatic science lover' also accepts it's not literal truth - better stated as just literally wrong. And so if it is literally wrong, it would probably be poetic myth, like much of this sort of ancient writing. They are taking on creationists by the claims they make. If one says x is truth, then I take 'x is truth' as their position and work with that.

I'll bash pseudoscience cheerleaders with the most appropriate 'weapon'. I think that maybe you are trying to be overly evenhanded on this issue. Of course, dogmatism can be an problem for a range of issues.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
I do not believe in the supernatural. We are all part of this universe as a universal conscienceness. Everything in connected and that connection, to some, is the definition of god.


I'd tend to agree with your sentiments there but think that,with regard to organised religion,man has never worshipped anything but himself.

I also think organised religion has had a terribly divisive,bloodthirsty and oppresive effect on humanity as a whole and we'd all be better off without it.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You are correct, most atheists will. But atheism isnt synonymous with science or scientists, is it?


Thus why I used most.



Atheism is every bit as much an opinion as religions is. No scientific evidence exists either way regarding the existence of God or a Divine force.


You can't possibly take the position that something for which there is no evidence has the same merit and probability of existing, otherwise you'd have to take all the other supernatural beliefs, myths and stories as equally probable.

Yes atheism is based on an opinion but there is a difference between an opinion based on factual and empirical evidence, and one based on the lack of evidence.



Like your Feynman quote, you seem to be mistaking one specific interpretation of God as the only possible one.


No, I am not. What I'm saying is that if the definition of God is the natural world to some then why call it God?

I am against the notion that there has to be something more because everything appears beautiful or perfect to some people.

This, in my view, applies to all notions of God, including projectvxn's.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


I agree, religion has been the single most destructive force on the planet. But faith has not been. Do not confuse faith with religion.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by karl 12
 


I agree, religion has been the single most destructive force on the planet. But faith has not been. Do not confuse faith with religion.


I think faith has been used to promote the (very dangerous) idea that some people are more special/saved/chosen/holy/superior to other humans.

Perhaps its faith that allows spirituality to be confused with religion.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Afrosamurai

Good, I'm glad you cleared that up. Now I want to know when the scientist's will be publishing the "absolute proof" of the evolution "theory".

Oh, by the way, shouldn't they be calling it the "evolution proof" by now?

By the way, if as you say, scientists have spent many years of their lives studying, teaching, and making money off of supporting their belief in the "Theory of Evolution", would they be in any hurry to change their minds?
 



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Very well put.
But manipulation of faith is not the same thing. That is what religion is. Faith cannot be used as an excuse for committing crimes only religion can.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join